PREFACE:- Why Does Mainland China Claim Taiwan as Its Own? The History, Law, Politics and Geopolitics Behind the Dispute

 

Why Does Mainland China Claim Taiwan as Its Own? The History, Law, Politics and Geopolitics Behind the Dispute

Your question raises one of the most important unresolved issues in international politics: if Taiwan celebrates the founding of the Republic of China in 1912, while mainland China celebrates the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949, why does Beijing insist that Taiwan belongs to it?

The answer involves a civil war that never reached a comprehensive political settlement, competing claims of state continuity, the history of Japanese colonial rule, disputed interpretations of postwar international agreements, nationalism, military strategy and the international recognition of governments.

The crucial distinction is that the People's Republic of China (PRC), which governs mainland China, claims sovereignty over Taiwan, but it has never exercised governmental control over Taiwan itself. Taiwan is governed separately by the Republic of China (ROC), with its own elected government, military, currency, courts and immigration system. These are facts about how the two governments operate; the ultimate legal status of Taiwan remains internationally contested.

Let's examine the issue step by step, separating historical facts from the competing legal arguments and political objectives.

1. First, understand the two National Days

October 10 — Taiwan's Double Ten Day

Republic of China (ROC)

Commemorates the Wuchang Uprising of October 10, 1911, which helped overthrow the Qing dynasty and launch the Chinese Revolution. The Republic of China was formally established on January 1, 1912.

2026: 115 years since the founding of the ROC.

October 1 — Mainland China's National Day

People's Republic of China (PRC)

Commemorates Mao Zedong's proclamation of the PRC in Beijing on October 1, 1949, following the Communist victory in the Chinese Civil War.

2026: 77 years since the founding of the PRC.

Both dates are historically valid. They commemorate different political milestones.

However, the existence of two founding dates does not automatically mean that there are two universally recognized sovereign Chinese states, each with an agreed territorial boundary. That is precisely the issue the two sides have never resolved.

The ROC was founded before the PRC existed. The PRC subsequently replaced the ROC as the government controlling mainland China, while the ROC government survived on Taiwan. Beijing argues that the change of government in 1949 transferred the right to represent China, including sovereignty over Taiwan, to the PRC. Taipei disputes Beijing's authority to govern Taiwan.

The most important distinction: a country, a government and a territory

Three concepts are often confused in discussions about Taiwan.

Concept	Meaning in this dispute
State	The political entity claiming international legal personality and sovereignty.
Government	The authority that administers a state and represents it internationally.
Territory	The land and maritime areas over which sovereignty is claimed or exercised.

Beijing's position is that the PRC is the sole legitimate government representing China and that Taiwan is an inseparable part of Chinese territory.

Taiwan's political reality is different: the ROC government administers Taiwan and several associated islands, and the PRC has never governed the island.

This creates a central question:

Does replacing a government on the mainland automatically give the new government sovereignty over a territory that it has never controlled?

Beijing says that the answer is yes in this case because the Chinese state and its territorial claims continued despite the change of government.

Critics of that argument respond that the PRC's succession to China's international representation does not, by itself, settle Taiwan's sovereignty or establish Beijing's right to govern Taiwan without the consent of its population.

That distinction is essential to understanding everything that follows.

The historical timeline: how the dispute developed

1683

Qing China takes control of Taiwan

Qing forces brought Taiwan under Qing imperial administration after defeating the Zheng regime. Taiwan was incorporated into Fujian Province in 1684 and became a separate province in 1885. However, the island's history before Qing rule included Indigenous societies and periods of Dutch, Spanish and other forms of external presence. Taiwan's history therefore cannot be reduced to a single, uninterrupted relationship with a Chinese government.

1895

Japan acquires Taiwan

Following the First Sino-Japanese War, the Qing dynasty ceded Taiwan and the Penghu Islands to Japan under the Treaty of Shimonoseki. Japan ruled Taiwan as a colony for 50 years, until its defeat in the Second World War.

1911–1912

The Republic of China is established

The revolution that began with the Wuchang Uprising helped bring down the Qing dynasty. The ROC was established in 1912, initially under a republican political system led by revolutionary figures including Sun Yat-sen.

At this stage, there was no People's Republic of China. The ROC was the government that claimed to represent China.

1943–1945

The Allies plan Japan's postwar territorial settlement

The 1943 Cairo Declaration stated that territories Japan had taken from China, including Formosa (Taiwan) and the Pescadores (Penghu), should be restored to the ROC. The 1945 Potsdam Proclamation required the terms of the Cairo Declaration to be carried out.

Japan surrendered in 1945, and the ROC government began administering Taiwan. These wartime documents are central to Beijing's historical argument, although their precise legal effect on the final transfer of sovereignty is disputed.

1947

The February 28 Incident and repression

Serious unrest broke out against ROC administration, followed by a violent crackdown by ROC forces. Thousands of people, and possibly many more, were killed or disappeared. This episode became a foundational event in Taiwan's modern political memory and deepened distrust of the government that had arrived from the mainland.

1945–1949

The Chinese Civil War resumes and ends on the mainland

The Kuomintang-led ROC government and the Chinese Communist Party fought for control of China. Communist forces won the decisive mainland campaign, and on October 1, 1949, Mao Zedong proclaimed the PRC in Beijing.

Chiang Kai-shek's ROC government retreated to Taiwan, where it continued operating. The Communist Party did not conquer Taiwan, and no peace agreement subsequently settled the competing claims.

1951–1952

Postwar peace treaties leave a crucial legal dispute

Under Article 2(b) of the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty, Japan renounced all right, title and claim to Taiwan and Penghu. However, that treaty did not explicitly identify the recipient of the territory.

Neither the PRC nor the ROC participated in the San Francisco treaty conference. In 1952, Japan and the ROC concluded a separate peace treaty, which the ROC interprets as confirming Taiwan's return to it. Different interpretations of these documents remain important to the dispute.

1971

The PRC takes China's seat at the United Nations

UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 recognized the representatives of the PRC as the only legitimate representatives of China at the United Nations and expelled the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek.

This was a major diplomatic victory for Beijing. However, the resolution's text does not explicitly determine Taiwan's sovereignty or expressly state that Taiwan is part of the PRC. The legal implications beyond China's representation remain disputed.

1987–1996

Taiwan democratizes

Martial law ended in 1987. Taiwan subsequently developed competitive multiparty politics, direct presidential elections and stronger democratic institutions. Its first direct presidential election took place in 1996.

The people living under the ROC government increasingly gained the ability to determine Taiwan's political direction through elections rather than through the old claim that Chiang's government would eventually reconquer the mainland.

2005

China passes its Anti-Secession Law

Beijing codified its opposition to Taiwanese independence and stated conditions under which it could employ "non-peaceful means" to protect what it considers China's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Today

Two separately governed political systems remain

The PRC governs mainland China. The ROC government governs Taiwan. Beijing continues to claim Taiwan, while Taiwan's political parties disagree about how best to manage relations with the mainland, preserve the status quo and define Taiwan's future.

The timeline reveals an important fact: the PRC's claim is rooted in the historical and territorial claims of the Chinese state, but its actual control over mainland China began in 1949, not over Taiwan. That difference between claiming a territory and governing it is central to the dispute.

Beijing's five principal reasons for claiming Taiwan

Reason 1 — It considers the Chinese Civil War unfinished

This is the most direct political explanation.

The Communist Party presents 1949 as the victory of a new Chinese government over the old Nationalist regime. In Beijing's interpretation, the ROC did not become a separate country when it retreated to Taiwan. Instead, it became a rival authority that continued to occupy a part of Chinese territory.

The PRC therefore argues:

• The Chinese state existed before 1949.

• The Communist Party defeated the previous government on the mainland.

• The PRC became the sole legitimate government representing China.

• Taiwan's separation is a consequence of an unfinished civil war, not an independent right to statehood.

Under this argument, unification is not the annexation of a foreign country. It is the completion of a national reunification project.

The counterargument is that the civil war's outcome on the mainland did not give the Communist Party actual control of Taiwan. Taiwan has developed a separate political system over many decades, and the two sides have not agreed to a common sovereign government.

The fundamental disagreement: Beijing treats Taiwan's separate government as a remaining consequence of civil war; many in Taiwan view their separate government as the political reality that must determine their future.

Reason 2 — It invokes the historical unity of Chinese territory

Beijing argues that Taiwan has long been connected to China and was taken by Japan in 1895. It relies heavily on the Cairo Declaration of 1943 and the Potsdam Proclamation of 1945 to support the proposition that Taiwan was to be restored to China after Japan's defeat.

The historical argument has substance: Taiwan was under Qing administration before Japan acquired it, and the ROC fought Japan during the Second World War.

However, historical connection and present-day sovereignty are not identical questions.

A territory can have a long historical relationship with a state, but determining its present legal status also requires consideration of treaties, subsequent political developments, effective government, state practice and the relevant rules of international law.

Taiwan's authorities make their own historical and legal arguments, including reliance on the ROC's postwar administration and the 1952 peace treaty with Japan.

Reason 3 — The PRC claims to represent all of China

Beijing's position is not simply that China has cultural ties to Taiwan. It says that there is one China and that the PRC is its sole legitimate government.

This is the distinction between the One China principle and other governments' diplomatic approaches to the issue.

Under Beijing's principle:

• There is only one China.

• Taiwan is part of China.

• The PRC government is the sole legitimate government representing China.

• Taiwan cannot become an independent state separate from China.

The ROC historically also claimed to be the legitimate government of all China. During the early Cold War, the two rival governments competed for diplomatic recognition as the representative of China.

Over time, most countries shifted diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing. That shift changed which government they recognized as representing China, but it did not mean that Beijing had conquered or begun administering Taiwan.

This is one reason why diplomatic recognition, territorial sovereignty and actual control must be examined separately.

Reason 4 — Taiwan independence is viewed as a threat to national unity

The Chinese Communist Party places substantial political importance on national unity and territorial integrity.

Beijing treats formal Taiwanese independence as an unacceptable change to China's territorial status. Its Anti-Secession Law, adopted on March 14, 2005, establishes a legal framework for opposing separation and includes a provision authorizing non-peaceful measures under specified circumstances.

The distinction is important:

• Peaceful unification: Beijing seeks an agreement under which Taiwan would become part of a unified political arrangement with the mainland.

• Opposition to formal independence: Beijing objects to Taiwan declaring a separate sovereign state.

• Possible use of force: Beijing's law explicitly leaves that option open under the conditions it specifies.

Taiwan's position differs. Its government maintains that its future should not be dictated by Beijing, and Taiwan's political debate includes different approaches to relations with China. There is no agreement between the two governments that authorizes Beijing to govern Taiwan.

Reason 5 — The dispute has become part of the PRC's national identity and political legitimacy

For the Chinese Communist Party, reunification is linked to a broader historical narrative: China was weakened by foreign intervention, suffered territorial losses, experienced civil war and then restored national strength under Communist rule.

Within this narrative, Taiwan represents an unresolved element of national reunification.

The political stakes are therefore larger than the island itself. Abandoning the claim could be portrayed domestically as surrendering national territory or failing to complete a historical mission.

This is an analysis of the institutional and ideological incentives facing Beijing, not proof of the private motives of any particular Chinese leader.

The same dispute also carries deep historical significance in Taiwan, where democratization and a separate political identity have changed how many residents understand the relationship with mainland China.

The legal controversy: what did the international agreements actually establish?

This is where the dispute becomes more complicated than either side's official historical narrative.

The key legal documents

A. Cairo Declaration — December 1943

The United States, United Kingdom and ROC declared that Japanese-held territories taken from China, including Taiwan and Penghu, should be restored to the ROC. Beijing relies on this as evidence that Taiwan was to return to China.

B. Potsdam Proclamation — July 1945

Article 8 stated that the terms of the Cairo Declaration would be carried out. Japan accepted the Potsdam terms when it surrendered.

C. Japanese Instrument of Surrender — September 1945

Japan accepted the Potsdam Proclamation. The ROC subsequently took over the administration of Taiwan.

D. San Francisco Peace Treaty — 1951

Article 2(b) required Japan to renounce all right, title and claim to Taiwan and Penghu. Crucially, it did not expressly name a recipient of sovereignty.

E. Japan–ROC Peace Treaty — 1952

The ROC interprets this agreement and its accompanying arrangements as supporting the conclusion that Taiwan belonged to the ROC after the war. Beijing rejects Taipei's use of the ROC's continued existence as a basis for excluding the PRC's sovereignty claim.

Sources: historical documents from the US State Department, Japan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the ROC's Office of the President.

Why does the San Francisco Peace Treaty matter so much?

The treaty's wording is central because it states that Japan renounced its claims to Taiwan without explicitly saying in that provision that sovereignty was transferred to the PRC or the ROC.

The US State Department's historical record confirms that neither Chinese government participated in the San Francisco peace conference and that the treaty did not specify the recipient of Taiwan.

That omission has produced competing interpretations.

Beijing's interpretation

The wartime declarations and surrender documents established the return of Taiwan to China. The PRC then became the legitimate government representing China in 1949, so the change of government did not alter the underlying sovereignty claim.

Taipei's interpretation

The ROC administered Taiwan after Japan's surrender and maintains that the postwar documents and the subsequent ROC–Japan treaty confirm its sovereignty. Taiwan's government argues that the PRC cannot derive sovereignty over Taiwan from documents that predate the PRC's existence.

The legal complication

The historical documents, the 1951 peace treaty and subsequent state practice do not all answer the same question. A declaration of wartime objectives, an instrument of surrender, a peace treaty and a later change in diplomatic recognition have different legal functions.

Consequently, it is not accurate to say that the San Francisco Peace Treaty explicitly transferred Taiwan to the PRC. It did not. Nor is it sufficient to cite the Cairo Declaration alone and assume that every aspect of Taiwan's present-day status has thereby been conclusively resolved.

The legal debate requires examining the documents together, rather than treating any one of them as the complete answer.

Did the United Nations declare Taiwan part of the PRC?

This is another important point.

In 1971, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 2758. It recognized the representatives of the PRC as the only legitimate representatives of China at the United Nations and removed the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek.

The resolution changed China's representation at the UN. It did not explicitly state that Taiwan was part of the PRC, nor did its text expressly decide Taiwan's territorial sovereignty.

There are two major interpretations of its implications.

• Beijing's position: There is one China, Taiwan is part of China, and the PRC's recognition as China's sole legitimate government means that Taiwan cannot claim a separate international status outside that framework.

• The opposing legal interpretation: The resolution settled who represents China at the UN, but did not independently settle Taiwan's sovereignty or authorize the PRC to represent Taiwan's population in every international institution.

Taiwan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs reiterated the latter interpretation in September 2026, arguing that Resolution 2758 neither states that Taiwan is part of China nor gives the PRC authority to represent Taiwan in the UN system. That is Taiwan's official legal position, rather than a universally accepted ruling resolving the sovereignty dispute.

The practical consequence is that Taiwan is not a UN member, while the PRC occupies the UN seat for China. This is a fact about international representation; it should not be confused with proof that the PRC exercises governmental control over Taiwan.

Why do most countries recognize Beijing instead of Taipei?

This is a major reason Beijing has been able to strengthen its claim internationally without governing Taiwan.

When the ROC government moved to Taiwan in 1949, it continued to hold China's UN seat for more than two decades. During that period, many countries recognized the ROC as the government of China.

The diplomatic balance changed during the Cold War.

1. The PRC controlled mainland China. Most of China's population, territory and central institutions were governed from Beijing.

2. Diplomatic recognition shifted. Governments increasingly recognized Beijing as the government representing China rather than Taipei, particularly as relations with the PRC became more important.

3. The UN representation changed in 1971. Resolution 2758 established the PRC's representation of China in the organization.

4. Countries adopted different diplomatic formulations. Many recognize the PRC as the government of China while maintaining unofficial relations with Taiwan. Their exact wording concerning the PRC's claim over Taiwan is not identical.

The United States, for example, recognizes the PRC government as the sole legal government of China but maintains unofficial relations with Taiwan. Its diplomatic framework and domestic legislation provide for a continuing relationship with Taiwan without establishing formal diplomatic recognition of Taiwan as a separate state.

The distinction between recognizing Beijing as China's government and accepting Beijing's sovereignty claim over Taiwan is therefore significant.

In international diplomacy, countries can recognize one government as representing China without all adopting the same legal interpretation of Taiwan's status.

What does "One China" actually mean?

The phrase is often used as though it has one universally agreed definition. In practice, it is used in different ways.

Term	Meaning
PRC's One China principle	There is one China; Taiwan is part of it; the PRC is the sole legitimate government of China.
ROC's historical position	The ROC claimed to represent all China, although Taiwan's political debate and policies have evolved substantially.
US One China policy	The US recognizes the PRC government as the sole legal government of China, acknowledges the Chinese position concerning Taiwan, and maintains unofficial relations with Taiwan under its own legal framework.
Cross-strait status quo	The PRC governs mainland China, while the ROC government separately administers Taiwan. Neither side has accepted the other's authority to govern the entire area on mutually agreed terms.

These formulations are not interchangeable.

A country may recognize the PRC government without explicitly endorsing every element of Beijing's claim to Taiwan. Similarly, unofficial relations with Taiwan do not necessarily amount to formal diplomatic recognition of Taiwan as a separate sovereign state.

This diplomatic ambiguity is one reason the dispute has persisted for decades.

Why does Beijing want Taiwan so badly? The strategic and economic dimensions

Historical claims explain how Beijing justifies its position. They do not, by themselves, explain why Taiwan remains so important to Chinese national strategy.

There are several overlapping strategic interests.

A. Geography and military access

Taiwan sits along the western Pacific approaches, between the Chinese mainland and the wider Pacific. It is part of the chain of islands running from Japan through Taiwan toward the Philippines.

Beijing's military planners have reasons to care about the island's location, including surveillance, naval access and the ability of foreign forces to operate near China's coast. Control of Taiwan would alter the military geography of the western Pacific, although it would not automatically give China unrestricted access to the ocean.

B. Semiconductors and advanced technology

Taiwan is a major center of advanced semiconductor manufacturing, including production by TSMC.

These chips are critical to artificial intelligence, smartphones, data centers, automotive electronics and advanced computing. Taiwan's semiconductor ecosystem is strategically important to China, the United States and the global economy.

However, it would be a mistake to assume that gaining territorial control would automatically transfer Taiwan's technological capabilities intact. War, sanctions, disrupted supply chains, loss of foreign equipment and the departure of skilled personnel could severely damage the industry.

C. Maritime trade and supply chains

Taiwan is situated near important East Asian shipping routes. A conflict would threaten commercial shipping, insurance markets, energy supplies and regional manufacturing.

Control over Taiwan would have implications for military access and maritime security, but it would not give China automatic sovereignty over international waters or neighboring countries.

D. National prestige and political legitimacy

Beijing presents reunification as a national objective. A settlement favorable to the PRC could be presented domestically as the completion of a historical mission.

Conversely, an outcome Beijing perceived as permanent separation could be politically difficult for its leadership, given the importance attached to territorial unity.

E. Competition with the United States and its regional partners

Taiwan is connected to the broader strategic competition between Beijing and Washington. The United States maintains unofficial relations with Taiwan and provides defensive support, while Japan and other regional actors have major interests in peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait.

Beijing sees foreign involvement as a complication in its unification objective. Other governments view the issue through their interests in regional security, deterrence, trade and the prevention of conflict.

The strategic explanation is therefore broader than semiconductors. Taiwan's geography, political symbolism, industrial importance and relationship with regional security all contribute to its significance.

What does Taiwan's population want?

This is arguably the most important question because the dispute is not simply about two governments making competing historical claims. It concerns the future of a population that has lived under a separate political system for generations.

Taiwan has developed its own democratic institutions, competitive elections, media environment, legal system and civil society. Its citizens elect their president and legislature.

The question of identity has also changed substantially.

National Chengchi University's long-running identity surveys, as reported in the available polling compilations, show that in December 2025 approximately 62% of respondents identified as Taiwanese, 2.5% as Chinese, and 31.7% as both Taiwanese and Chinese. These figures measure identity, not direct support for independence or unification.

It is important not to confuse three different questions:

1. Do people identify as Taiwanese, Chinese, or both?

2. Do they support formal Taiwanese independence, unification with the mainland, or maintaining the status quo?

3. Under what political, security and economic conditions would they accept a change in Taiwan's status?

These questions can produce different answers.

Someone may identify as both Taiwanese and Chinese while opposing rule by the PRC. Another person may identify primarily as Taiwanese but prefer to maintain the current arrangements rather than declare formal independence and risk a conflict.

Likewise, support for maintaining the status quo does not necessarily mean support for eventual unification. It may reflect a preference for preserving self-government and avoiding war.

The central democratic question is whether Taiwan's future should be determined by its population through a peaceful political process or imposed by a government that currently does not administer the island. Beijing and Taipei fundamentally disagree over the sovereign framework within which that question should be answered.

What is the position of the United States?

The United States occupies a particularly important position because it recognizes the PRC government diplomatically while maintaining unofficial relations with Taiwan.

Its approach rests on several elements:

• Recognition of the PRC government as the sole legal government of China.

• Unofficial relations with Taiwan under US domestic law.

• Support for Taiwan's ability to defend itself.

• Opposition to unilateral changes to the status quo, particularly through force or coercion.

The United States does not maintain formal diplomatic relations with Taiwan, but it does not treat Taiwan as simply an area administered by Beijing either. Its policy is deliberately structured to preserve unofficial ties while managing the risks of a conflict.

The US approach is often described as strategic ambiguity: Washington does not make an unconditional, automatic commitment to intervene militarily in every possible Taiwan conflict.

This creates uncertainty for Beijing about the potential cost of using force, while also leaving Taiwan without an unconditional public guarantee of direct US military intervention.

Other countries have their own formulations of their One China policies. Their precise diplomatic wording and commitments should be examined individually rather than assumed to be identical to Beijing's principle.

What is happening now? The significance of October 2026

The dispute remains active, not merely historical.

On October 10, 2026, Taiwan's President Lai Ching-te used his National Day speech to emphasize that Taiwan values peace but will not surrender its freedom or accept subordination to the mainland. Beijing condemned his remarks and reiterated its position that Taiwan is part of China.

On October 12, Reuters reported that Taiwan's defense minister was monitoring a series of Chinese live-fire drills along China's coast. The reported exercises were not directly around Taiwan, but the announcement came amid heightened political tensions following the National Day exchanges.

These developments illustrate three continuing features of the dispute:

• Beijing continues to treat Taiwan's political direction as an issue of Chinese sovereignty.

• Taiwan's government emphasizes its separate democratic system and the need to preserve peace and self-government.

• Military activity and diplomatic pressure operate alongside economic relations and occasional calls for dialogue.

They do not, by themselves, establish that a war is imminent. They do demonstrate why the historical dispute continues to have immediate security consequences.

Could Taiwan and mainland China ever resolve the dispute?

Several broad pathways are possible, although none should be treated as a prediction.

Scenario A — Continued status quo

Taiwan continues to govern itself, while Beijing maintains its sovereignty claim. The two sides manage their economic, diplomatic and security interactions without reaching a final settlement.

Main challenge: recurring tensions, military pressure and the absence of a mutually accepted political framework.

Scenario B — Negotiated political settlement

The two sides pursue a negotiated arrangement addressing sovereignty, security, political representation and the rights of Taiwan's population.

Main challenge: Beijing's insistence on unification and Taiwan's demand for meaningful self-government and democratic legitimacy.

Scenario C — Formal separation or a new constitutional arrangement

Taiwan makes a major change to its formal political status or adopts a new constitutional framework.

Main challenge: Beijing's explicit opposition to formal independence, the international consequences and the risk of escalation.

Scenario D — Military conflict or coercive takeover

Beijing attempts to impose its preferred outcome through military force or coercion.

Main challenge: potential loss of life, damage to Taiwan's infrastructure, regional military escalation, disruption to global trade and semiconductors, and possible involvement by outside powers.

The feasibility of any pathway depends on the political choices of both sides, the preferences of Taiwan's population, Beijing's calculations, the positions of the United States and regional governments, and the costs of escalation.

None of these scenarios is inevitable.

The final answer to your question

Why does China claim Taiwan as its own despite Taiwan's separate government and its own National Day?

The answer is that Beijing combines four arguments:

1. Historical continuity: Taiwan was historically connected to China and, in Beijing's view, was supposed to be restored after Japanese colonial rule.

2. Civil-war continuity: The PRC regards the Communist victory in 1949 as a change of government within China, not the creation of a new territorial claim that excludes Taiwan.

3. Diplomatic representation: The PRC's recognition as the government representing China at the United Nations and by most countries has strengthened Beijing's international position.

4. Strategic and political interests: Taiwan's location, economic importance, security implications and role in the Chinese national-unification narrative make the dispute a major priority for Beijing.

But these arguments must be distinguished from the facts of present-day governance.

The PRC governs mainland China and claims Taiwan. The ROC government governs Taiwan and has never been replaced there by the PRC. Taiwan's political future remains disputed, and the relevant international documents do not all answer the same question about representation, territorial sovereignty and the right to govern.

The 1912 and 1949 founding dates therefore do not contradict each other. They mark the origins of two competing political histories: the Republic of China, which survives on Taiwan, and the People's Republic of China, which governs the mainland.

The deepest unresolved question is no longer simply which government represents China. It is whether Taiwan's future should be determined through an agreed political settlement or by Beijing's claim that Taiwan must ultimately come under PRC sovereignty.

That is why Double Ten Day matters beyond its historical commemoration. It reflects the survival of a political system founded in 1912, its transformation through decades of authoritarian rule and democratization, and the continuing disagreement over Taiwan's place in the international order.

By Jugo Ikeji Uju

Content Sponsorship available-

Special "Documentary and Investigative" episodes sponsorships available with links on ubuntusafa.com

Contact admin:

sappertekinc@gmail.com

admin@ubuntusafa.com